Re: p1: Receiving a higher minor HTTP version number

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sat, 20 April 2013 08:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D0E21F8EBE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.411
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.411 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.188, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10YC9sgorwSS for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F5E21F8D70 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UTTYA-0008KA-NQ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:53:38 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:53:38 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UTTYA-0008KA-NQ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UTTY7-0008JV-Fy for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:53:35 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UTTY6-000449-Kr for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:53:35 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F04E5509B5; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 04:53:12 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20130420064721.GE26517@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:53:09 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C715EE6A-837E-4B1F-959A-A28D3CF963BB@mnot.net>
References: <F6462D1C-A086-42A1-9812-1B99E2E5775D@mnot.net> <20130420062904.GD26517@1wt.eu> <F1F0559C-B237-499C-96D9-32B9DDF8B1CF@mnot.net> <20130420064721.GE26517@1wt.eu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.284, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UTTY6-000449-Kr 30d0e7472e850b6c72d27450d7c6a6a7
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: Receiving a higher minor HTTP version number
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/C715EE6A-837E-4B1F-959A-A28D3CF963BB@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17413
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

It might also help to add "major" to the first sentence of the description of 505 in p2:

> The 505 (HTTP Version Not Supported) status code indicates that the server does not support, or refuses to support, the protocol version that was used in the request message. 

Because some people will read that and stop.


On 20/04/2013, at 4:47 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 04:30:17PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 
>> On 20/04/2013, at 4:29 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 02:07:17PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>> I don't see anything in p1 2.6 Protocol Versioning that explicitly says an
>>>> implementation ought to accept a message that has the same major version
>>>> number it implements, but a higher minor version number.
>>>> 
>>>> I think we need to spell this out, because IME some servers do error out on
>>>> (for example) a HTTP/1.2 request.
>>> 
>>> Makes sense but I'm not sure that these implementations will change for
>>> this these days anyway, with 2.0 coming. Also we have seen with the
>>> 1.0->1.1 transition that the minor change was not that seemless (specifically
>>> due to persistent conns).
>> 
>> 
>> Yeah, if this is uncontroversial, I can see adding a sentence or two (maybe
>> with a requirement); if not, it's probably not worth the time.
> 
> Maybe at least what we should (IMO) say is that if an implementation receives
> a message in a minor version it does not support, it should apply the
> semantics of its own version and respond with its own (and probably refrain
> from using persistent connections). This would give guidelines to people who
> just implement 1.0 in simple scripts (though it's unlikely that these people
> read RFCs anyway).
> 
> Willy
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/